Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification



View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3
Rikkitic

Awrrr
17748 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  #2081863 31-Aug-2018 12:53
Send private message

I agree with Trump and Dutton. Not with Canadian (or any other) crypto-fascists. I am more than happy to draw the line.

 

 





Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

 


 


 
 
 

Backblaze Unlimited Backup. World’s easiest cloud backup. Get peace of mind knowing your files are backed up securely in the cloud (affiliate link).
MikeAqua
7724 posts

Uber Geek


  #2083648 4-Sep-2018 11:08
Send private message

elpenguino:

 

You describe Manning as 'he', but Manning describes herself as 'she'. Does that mean you are un-supportive of her gender reassignment?

 

 

I've used he and she, depending on the period of time I was referring to. 





Mike


MikeAqua
7724 posts

Uber Geek


  #2083650 4-Sep-2018 11:11
Send private message

MikeAqua:

 

Manning could enjoy un-fettered freedom of speech via video-call into any meeting or public event in NZ.

 

People may remember that Julien Assange once did so for an internet-mana party rally. 

 

 

Looks like Manning video called a gathering in Sydney.

 

https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/106767388/Chelsea-Manning-appears-at-Sydney-Opera-House-via-video

 

Immigration denied, freedom of speech utilised.





Mike




Rikkitic

Awrrr
17748 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  #2083712 4-Sep-2018 11:59
Send private message

Which just goes to demonstrate that there was no point whatsoever in banning her. It was just a cheap political shot by a thoroughly discredited government agency. I am glad we are more grown-up about such things.

 

 





Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

 


 


MikeAqua
7724 posts

Uber Geek


  #2083743 4-Sep-2018 12:22
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

Which just goes to demonstrate that there was no point whatsoever in banning her. It was just a cheap political shot by a thoroughly discredited government agency. I am glad we are more grown-up about such things.

 

 

Personally I think this demonstrates quite nicely that  freedom of speech within a country is not dependent on approval to enter it.  In today's world location is almost irrelevant to communication.  People do surgery remotely ...

 

Weather Manning not being approved to enter Australia was 'pointless' depends on what the rationale was.  If it was to prevent her speaking, then yes it was pointless - but surely the powers that be would know that in advance?  If it was to keep her out of the country - worked.  If it was a nod to Uncle Sam - worked.

 

I'm not uncomfortable with NZ's decision.  Manning is a criminal, oath-breaker and traitor, but probably not capable of causing further harm.

 

 





Mike


elpenguino
3035 posts

Uber Geek


  #2083770 4-Sep-2018 12:47
Send private message

MikeAqua:

 

I'm not uncomfortable with NZ's decision.  Manning is a criminal, oath-breaker and traitor, but probably not capable of causing further harm.

 

 

 

 

While all those things are on the face of it true, the larger and more important point of the issue is that her actions were done for a GREATER good.

 

I am morally and ethically allowed to punch you in the head if it stops you beating your wife.

 

Do you accept this idea?





Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21


Rikkitic

Awrrr
17748 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  #2083773 4-Sep-2018 12:49
Send private message

And how about some of the criminal acts she exposed, that would have remained buried forever without her? There are different ways of defining treason. Those who oppose her keep rabbiting on about her dastardly actions, never a word about the innocent civilians mown down by American hot-shots who joked about it as they slaughtered parents and children. Maybe Manning shouldn't have done what she did. Neither should those she exposed. I see her acts as very much the lesser of evils. It has never been proven that anyone died as a result of what she did. There is no question whatsoever that the ones she exposed were responsible for many illegal killings. There seems to be something of a double standard here.

 

 





Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

 


 




dwilson
162 posts

Master Geek


  #2084652 6-Sep-2018 04:42
Send private message

elpenguino:

 

MikeAqua:

 

I'm not uncomfortable with NZ's decision.  Manning is a criminal, oath-breaker and traitor, but probably not capable of causing further harm.

 

 

 

 

While all those things are on the face of it true, the larger and more important point of the issue is that her actions were done for a GREATER good.

 

I am morally and ethically allowed to punch you in the head if it stops you beating your wife.

 

Do you accept this idea?

 

 

I believe you would be charged with common assault in the example provided. If your punch had broken his jaw for example you'd also be charged with one of the nastier crimes ("... and causing injury").

 

The police might argue you used a unnecessary level of violence to stop the attack on MikeAqua's wife, suggesting a grappling attack would have easily sufficed and that you escalated the level of violence.


tdgeek
28931 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #2084666 6-Sep-2018 07:13
Send private message

My views are that you cannot censor free speech. This latest one is a classic example. Who decides who we censor? Might be an ultra left wing liberal, might be a ultra right wing conservative, might be someone in power with a bias. That other couple was decided here to ban them, this one, its ok. Picking and choosing, it may as well be an autocrat deciding based on his/her bias


MikeAqua
7724 posts

Uber Geek


  #2084710 6-Sep-2018 09:25
Send private message

elpenguino:

 

MikeAqua:

 

I'm not uncomfortable with NZ's decision.  Manning is a criminal, oath-breaker and traitor, but probably not capable of causing further harm.

 

 

While all those things are on the face of it true, the larger and more important point of the issue is that her actions were done for a GREATER good.

 

I am morally and ethically allowed to punch you in the head if it stops you beating your wife.

 

Do you accept this idea?

 

 

There is specific defence at law for preventing assault.  Are there analogous defences for oath-breaking, treason etc based on the greater good ? 

 

Also, what greater good?  OK, a whole lot of info has been leaked - but what has changed in a way that can be attributed to the leak? Arguably - no good at all was achieved by Manning and we are back to treason and oath-breaking. 

 

It's very subjective and it's very easy for someone to argue they thought they were acting for the greater good - those people who vandalised the Waihopai radio domes being a classic example.

 

BTW - I don't have a wife and have never raised my hand to a woman in my entire life - not even in self defence.  It's unclear to me why you needed to use such a personalised example.

 

 





Mike


MikeAqua
7724 posts

Uber Geek


  #2084715 6-Sep-2018 09:34
Send private message

tdgeek:

 

My views are that you cannot censor free speech.

 

 

No-one tried to censor Manning in relation to visiting to Australia or NZ.  The only contention was around entry to the country, based on criminal record.  Any reasonably informed person would realise that she could still video-call in, so denying entry would be futile as an act of censorship

 

If you are referring to confidentiality of information - then I think censorship can be reasonable.  I routinely sign NDAs in relation to govt's or other companies' information.  If I break those agreements I can be sued, fired and ruined financially and professionally.  So I get to learn about some cool stuff while being paid to do so, but that means I can't talk about it.





Mike


tdgeek
28931 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #2084718 6-Sep-2018 09:40
Send private message

MikeAqua:

 

tdgeek:

 

My views are that you cannot censor free speech.

 

 

No-one tried to censor Manning in relation to visiting to Australia or NZ.  The only contention was around entry to the country, based on criminal record.  Any reasonably informed person would realise that she could still video-call in, so denying entry would be futile as an act of censorship

 

If you are referring to confidentiality of information - then I think censorship can be reasonable.  I routinely sign NDAs in relation to govt's or other companies' information.  If I break those agreements I can be sued, fired and ruined financially and professionally.  So I get to learn about some cool stuff while being paid to do so, but that means I can't talk about it.

 

 

That's right, but denying entry or some here who wanted to deny entry is censorship, even though video is a workaround. I don't think NDA's apply, the topic is based around the public arena, who can and who can't talk.  


Rikkitic

Awrrr
17748 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  #2084726 6-Sep-2018 09:53
Send private message

tdgeek:

 

My views are that you cannot censor free speech. This latest one is a classic example. Who decides who we censor? Might be an ultra left wing liberal, might be a ultra right wing conservative, might be someone in power with a bias. That other couple was decided here to ban them, this one, its ok. Picking and choosing, it may as well be an autocrat deciding based on his/her bias

 

 

This is a fake argument. It is the same one used by alt-righters to drive a wedge so they can spew their poison. You don’t have to have a legal matter of principle that applies the same from one extreme to the other. You don’t need to allow a mob on your street screaming zieg heil to know you don’t want them preaching in your local schools. Some things should be banned. Not because some official or self-appointed censor says so, but because they offend the common sense and decency of the majority of the people.

 

 





Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

 


 


tdgeek
28931 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #2084739 6-Sep-2018 10:03
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

tdgeek:

 

My views are that you cannot censor free speech. This latest one is a classic example. Who decides who we censor? Might be an ultra left wing liberal, might be a ultra right wing conservative, might be someone in power with a bias. That other couple was decided here to ban them, this one, its ok. Picking and choosing, it may as well be an autocrat deciding based on his/her bias

 

 

This is a fake argument. It is the same one used by alt-righters to drive a wedge so they can spew their poison. You don’t have to have a legal matter of principle that applies the same from one extreme to the other. You don’t need to allow a mob on your street screaming zieg heil to know you don’t want them preaching in your local schools. Some things should be banned. Not because some official or self-appointed censor says so, but because they offend the common sense and decency of the majority of the people.

 

 

 

 

Its not a fake argument. You may decide what is right and wrong, doesn't mean it's correct. Some may feel its not wrong, or a little bit wrong or REALLY wrong, so who is correct? alt-right is a view as is alt-left. Whats a majority? 51%.  Most elected Governments are voted in with a majority which is often near 51%. Thats only a technical majority.  My point is we have free speech or we pick and choose when we have free speech, which is a pretend, convenient, but false free speech.


Rikkitic

Awrrr
17748 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  #2084745 6-Sep-2018 10:10
Send private message

Don't learn anything from history. Enjoy your freedom in Gilead. Let me know how your free speech is going after the fascist takeover. 

 

 





Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

 


 


1 | 2 | 3
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic





News and reviews »

One New Zealand Extends 3G Switch-off Date
Posted 11-Apr-2024 08:56


Amazon Echo Hub Review
Posted 10-Apr-2024 18:57


Epson Launches New Versatile A4 Desktop Scanners
Posted 10-Apr-2024 15:31


Motorola Mobility Launches New Android Phones in New Zealand
Posted 10-Apr-2024 14:59


Logitech G Unveils the PRO X 60 Gaming Keyboard
Posted 9-Apr-2024 19:01


Logitech Unveils Signature Slim Keyboard and Combo
Posted 9-Apr-2024 13:33


ExpressVPN Launches Aircove Go Portable Router With Built-in VPN
Posted 26-Mar-2024 21:25


Shure MoveMic Review
Posted 25-Mar-2024 12:47


reMarkable 2 Launches at JB Hi-Fi New Zealand
Posted 20-Mar-2024 08:36


Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra review
Posted 19-Mar-2024 11:37


Google Nest Wifi Pro Review
Posted 16-Mar-2024 11:28


Samsung Galaxy A55 5G and Galaxy A35 5G
Posted 12-Mar-2024 12:41


Cricut EasyPress Mini Zen Blue launches at Spotlight New Zealand
Posted 12-Mar-2024 12:32


Logitech Introduces MX Brio Webcam
Posted 12-Mar-2024 12:24


HP Unveils Broadest Consumer Portfolio of AI-Enhanced Laptops
Posted 3-Mar-2024 18:09









Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.







GoodSync is the easiest file sync and backup for Windows and Mac